7 ms·

Employers are just butthurt they might not be able to do geographic arbitrage anymore. This was always coming in a globally connected world, but they’ll fight i

Employers are just butthurt they might not be able to do geographic arbitrage anymore. This was always coming in a globally connected world, but they’ll fight it kicking and screaming like always.

CoastalCoder 5y ago
With remote work, geographic arbitrage can work both ways.
- ISL 5y ago
  Americans haven't yet begun to understand the full impact there.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    The cognitive dissonance I see on this issue is wild to observe. “Basecamp pays San Francisco salaries no matter where you are; I’m sure that’s what everyone else will decide to do…” I’d bet heavily against that being the point of convergence.
  - dwater 5y ago
    What do you think is different now from how offshoring has been done for the past 20+ years in the tech sector? Or 50+ years in manufacturing? My employer has thousands of engineers in India, and yet they are still hiring as many US based engineers as they can at the moment. Of course some organizations will do more offshoring as remote work becomes more common, but I don't see the shift to remote work resulting in too many organizations suddenly moving all their tech jobs to Vietnam in the next few years.
    - spaetzleesser 5y ago
      Having people in approximately the same time zone and without language or cultural differences makes managing work much easier. Offshoring is very hard and if you are not careful very inefficient.
    - simplestats 5y ago
      I'm sure they're hiring anyone they can in India too. If they could completely cover their technical staffing needs there (both in terms of numbers but also the higher skill levels that are hardest to find) you'd be in trouble. I have worked in niches in the past that are now almost completely handled in India. And I had to move on to doing something new, despite the fact that my employer still has tons of tech staff (in fact most of it) in the US too.
  - TimedToasts 5y ago
    Many of us have. It's very unfortunate that the Covid-anxiety many people have about returning to an office is driving them in the direction of always-remote. Fear is the mind-killer, as they say.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      For years people around here have been clamoring for more remote work flexibility, along with near-universal objection to a now-forgotten annoyance that previously plagued this industry: the tyranny of the open office. Sure there may be people who don't want to go back because of the disease, but many in tech likely don't want to go back simply because they've now realized two of their long-ignored objectives.
brianwawok 5y ago
So your position is a company should pay the same $ for the same job, no matter where the person lives? Why would I ever hire someone that lives in SF/Cali/NY? In fact, why would I hire someone that lives in the US?
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  Why indeed? Is this supposed to be a dunk? If you're paying based on value derived from their work, what does it matter where they live (assuming remote work is acceptable, of course)?
  - brianwawok 5y ago
    The entire argument of "There shouldn't be different pay scales based on where you live" is often given by, say someone who lives in Florida. And a rather big hole in that argument is "If you think Florida should make SF money, why don't we just skip both and get someone out of China/India/Russia"
    - notreallyserio 5y ago
      I'm not sure how that counts as a hole in the argument. Sure, get someone out of any country if they can do the job. That's the promise of the public Internet, connecting folks around the world. Seems like that would be a net benefit.
    - strikelaserclaw 5y ago
      You choose to live in SF, NYC or wherever, you get all the advantages of opportunity and networking with that, what makes someone deserve that?
  - jdlshore 5y ago
    > If you're paying based on value derived from their work You're not. You're paying based on how much it would cost to find somebody to do the work. You're paying for time, not value. Profit comes from the difference between the two.
xeromal 5y ago
I don't understand the hate for geographic arbitrage.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  You don't understand why people hate being paid less than someone else for the same work? Guess Upton Sinclair was correct that it's difficult to get someone to understand something when their paycheck depends on them not understanding it. There are situations where two people of equal ability and output are worth differing amounts to the company. If you're in a vastly different time zone that makes work coordination difficult or the company has reason to need in-person collaboration, paying someone more to conform to those location constraints make sense as those people are more valuable to the company. But thinking a company should pay a remote worker who chooses to live in a high rent area more than a person who doesn't even though both have equal value to the company isn't logical. In the end, the people in the low rent areas will be picked off by competitors who see their value rather than their location. I don't understand the parental model of employment that seems to be all the rage these days. Employees aren't the company's children and the company aren't the employees' parents. It's weird how often people bring their personal choices and needs into the compensation discussion and often elevate it into a moral issue. If you have six babies you don't deserve to get paid more for the same work as someone who is childless but that seems to be a common way of thinking now.
  - xeromal 5y ago
    We eventually have to play geographic arbitrage or we'll just outside literally every job to the cheapest-to-live country. They have just as capable devs as we do.
    - UnFleshedOne 5y ago
      Like they say: "In the end, average temperature in the hospital is approaching room temperature." For arbitrage to be entirely fair, if a company can easily hire from 2 places, workers should be able to move between those places just as easily. So subunits of the same country if fair game, but countries must not be, unless both countries have effectively open borders with each other.

Employers are just butthurt they might not be able to do geographic arbitrage anymore. This was always coming in a globally connected world, but they’ll fight it kicking and screaming like always.

CoastalCoder 5y ago

With remote work, geographic arbitrage can work both ways.

ISL 5y ago
Americans haven't yet begun to understand the full impact there.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  The cognitive dissonance I see on this issue is wild to observe. “Basecamp pays San Francisco salaries no matter where you are; I’m sure that’s what everyone else will decide to do…” I’d bet heavily against that being the point of convergence.
- dwater 5y ago
  What do you think is different now from how offshoring has been done for the past 20+ years in the tech sector? Or 50+ years in manufacturing? My employer has thousands of engineers in India, and yet they are still hiring as many US based engineers as they can at the moment. Of course some organizations will do more offshoring as remote work becomes more common, but I don't see the shift to remote work resulting in too many organizations suddenly moving all their tech jobs to Vietnam in the next few years.
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    Having people in approximately the same time zone and without language or cultural differences makes managing work much easier. Offshoring is very hard and if you are not careful very inefficient.
  - simplestats 5y ago
    I'm sure they're hiring anyone they can in India too. If they could completely cover their technical staffing needs there (both in terms of numbers but also the higher skill levels that are hardest to find) you'd be in trouble. I have worked in niches in the past that are now almost completely handled in India. And I had to move on to doing something new, despite the fact that my employer still has tons of tech staff (in fact most of it) in the US too.
- TimedToasts 5y ago
  Many of us have. It's very unfortunate that the Covid-anxiety many people have about returning to an office is driving them in the direction of always-remote. Fear is the mind-killer, as they say.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    For years people around here have been clamoring for more remote work flexibility, along with near-universal objection to a now-forgotten annoyance that previously plagued this industry: the tyranny of the open office. Sure there may be people who don't want to go back because of the disease, but many in tech likely don't want to go back simply because they've now realized two of their long-ignored objectives.

brianwawok 5y ago

So your position is a company should pay the same $ for the same job, no matter where the person lives? Why would I ever hire someone that lives in SF/Cali/NY? In fact, why would I hire someone that lives in the US?

notreallyserio 5y ago
Why indeed? Is this supposed to be a dunk? If you're paying based on value derived from their work, what does it matter where they live (assuming remote work is acceptable, of course)?
- brianwawok 5y ago
  The entire argument of "There shouldn't be different pay scales based on where you live" is often given by, say someone who lives in Florida. And a rather big hole in that argument is "If you think Florida should make SF money, why don't we just skip both and get someone out of China/India/Russia"
  - notreallyserio 5y ago
    I'm not sure how that counts as a hole in the argument. Sure, get someone out of any country if they can do the job. That's the promise of the public Internet, connecting folks around the world. Seems like that would be a net benefit.
  - strikelaserclaw 5y ago
    You choose to live in SF, NYC or wherever, you get all the advantages of opportunity and networking with that, what makes someone deserve that?
- jdlshore 5y ago
  > If you're paying based on value derived from their work You're not. You're paying based on how much it would cost to find somebody to do the work. You're paying for time, not value. Profit comes from the difference between the two.

xeromal 5y ago

I don't understand the hate for geographic arbitrage.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
You don't understand why people hate being paid less than someone else for the same work? Guess Upton Sinclair was correct that it's difficult to get someone to understand something when their paycheck depends on them not understanding it. There are situations where two people of equal ability and output are worth differing amounts to the company. If you're in a vastly different time zone that makes work coordination difficult or the company has reason to need in-person collaboration, paying someone more to conform to those location constraints make sense as those people are more valuable to the company. But thinking a company should pay a remote worker who chooses to live in a high rent area more than a person who doesn't even though both have equal value to the company isn't logical. In the end, the people in the low rent areas will be picked off by competitors who see their value rather than their location. I don't understand the parental model of employment that seems to be all the rage these days. Employees aren't the company's children and the company aren't the employees' parents. It's weird how often people bring their personal choices and needs into the compensation discussion and often elevate it into a moral issue. If you have six babies you don't deserve to get paid more for the same work as someone who is childless but that seems to be a common way of thinking now.
- xeromal 5y ago
  We eventually have to play geographic arbitrage or we'll just outside literally every job to the cheapest-to-live country. They have just as capable devs as we do.
  - UnFleshedOne 5y ago
    Like they say: "In the end, average temperature in the hospital is approaching room temperature." For arbitrage to be entirely fair, if a company can easily hire from 2 places, workers should be able to move between those places just as easily. So subunits of the same country if fair game, but countries must not be, unless both countries have effectively open borders with each other.